It’s a tale as old as time. Man sees electric bike advertisement touting 50-mile range. Man buys e-bike. Man’s first ride gets 25 miles before the battery’s charge dwindles. Man is justifiably disappointed.
So what gives? Why does it seem like you can never trust the range numbers that the electric bike makers tell us?
The short answer is that it seems that way because that’s the way it is. You simply can’t trust the range figure printed on an electric bicycle’s marketing material. At least not most of the time.
There are several good reasons for this, so let’s break them down.
No standard for range testing for e-bikes
First of all, e-bikes aren’t like cars. There aren’t any standards for battery range testing on e-bikes. It’s not like the “EPA-rated 32 mpg” or “NEDC-tested 250 miles of range” you’ll see in car ads.
Range ratings for e-bikes aren’t determined by outside agencies. They are determined by the bike makers themselves. In the best case, the printed distance figures come from real-world range testing. Some companies like Aventon and Lectric eBikes have stepped up with real-world range data on their sites for each level of pedal assist or throttle riding. That’s the best case. But in the worst case, some companies just give us numbers that they pull out of a hat or theorize that their bike can probably achieve.
Which companies are which? Without hard data displayed on the company’s site, it’s hard to know. That’s the problem. Unless a company puts real-world testing data out there, we’re left to guess.
Range varies WIDELY based on a number of factors
This is actually the single largest reason that you almost never actually achieve the range quoted by the e-bike manufacturer. There is a huge variance in the real world battery range of an e-bike on a single charge. There are literally dozens of factors that have significant impacts on range.
Even if an e-bike company wanted to give one number as the ultimate, end all and be all, certified range of their e-bike – a number that they are confident you can achieve – they simply wouldn’t be able to do it. It just depends on too many factors.
Carrying a passenger (or two)? That’ll ding your range
It’s amazing how many factors can have a measurable impact on e-bike range.
Are your tires low on air or pumped to the max? Are you riding uphill or downhill? Tailwind or headwind? Brake rub? Crouched or sitting up tall? Is the road wet? Did you eat a big lunch? Have you eaten big lunches for the last 30 years? What gear are you in? What power level are you in? Knobby or smooth tires? Are you wearing a backpack or carrying cargo on a rack or basket? Any passengers with you? Are you riding on asphalt? Concrete? Dirt? Gravel? Sand? The list goes on and on.
Depending on the answers to those questions, the exact same electric bike could travel 15 miles or 60 miles on a single battery charge. Yeah, it’s wild.
Many people expect e-bike ranges to be more repeatable, similar to car mileage. But then again, consider that unlike cars, which often outweigh their drivers by 20 to 1, you probably outweigh your bike by 3 or 4 to 1. So changes in you or your environment have a much bigger impact on range than they do for other larger vehicles likes cars and trucks.
All of these factors make it harder for e-bike companies to offer a realistic range, and so they usually test for the best-case scenario. That means a lightweight rider (often listed at 150 lb., even though the average American adult female and male each weigh 170 and 200 lb., respectively) riding on a pancake flat and smooth surface with ultra-high air pressure in the tires and with the bike set into its lowest power mode. It’s not “cheating,” assuming they provide the real test data. It’s just putting their best pedaling foot forward. But in the real world, most of us won’t be riding in the same ideal conditions. So the “maximum” range that most e-bike companies quote simply aren’t realistic for most of us.
Throttle versus pedal assist range
This is another major factor affecting range. Any Europeans reading this, you poor things can ignore this section since your governments don’t believe you can be trusted with throttles. For the Americans, Canadians, Australians, and civil-disobeying Europeans still here with me, listen up.
The general rule of thumb is that throttle riding will nearly halve your range compared to pedal assist. That’s why most e-bike companies will list their maximum range based on pedal assist. When you see an e-bike listed as having a “50-mile range,” that’s almost certainly the pedal assist range. The throttle range is probably closer to 25-30 miles, depending on conditions. A true 50-mile throttle-only range would usually require having a battery of at least 1,300 Wh, or around twice the size of an average e-bike battery.
Some companies like Rad Power Bikes are pretty good about listing a range of ranges (get it?) instead of a single number. For example, they tell us that the RadRunner 3 Plus’s range is “Estimated 25-45+ miles per charge (40-72+ km)” in the specs section of the product page, though they’re still guilty of the slightly misleading “Up to 45 miles per charge” phrase in larger font on the main page.
How can you know an electric bike’s ‘real’ range?
There’s a messy, overgeneralized rule of thumb that I created to quickly judge approximate bike range. But be warned: It requires a small amount of math. Don’t worry though, you can handle it.
At 20 mph, my messy rule of thumb is 25 Wh/mi for throttle riding and 15 Wh/mi for pedal assist riding. This is for a decently powerful level – we’re not talking Eco Mode or Level 1 pedal assist here. At very low-power pedal assist where the rider does most of the work, it is possible to even achieve closer to 5 Wh/mi.
For anyone who uses a more sensical system of measurement, that means when riding at 32 km/h, you can generally expect somewhere around 15 Wh/km on throttle and 9 Wh/km on pedal assist, though it can drop as low as 3 Wh/km on really low power pedal assist.
So to use my rule of thumb, simply divide the watt-hour capacity (Wh) of the battery by my efficiency numbers and you’ll get the rough range. An e-bike like the RadRunner 3 Plus mentioned above with a 624 Wh battery should get roughly 624 Wh ÷ 25 Wh/mi = 25 miles of range on throttle-only riding. In sensical measurements, that’s 624 Wh ÷ 15 Wh/km = 41 km. That number actually aligns nicely with Rad’s published figures. Go figure.
Like I said though, this is a rough approximation. It can vary based on many factors. If you’re a heavy rider, you might even use slightly higher constants than I mentioned, such as 30 Wh/mi instead of 25 Wh/mi. Other factors like terrain and tire width make a big impact on this guesstimate system as well.
For science, I once took an e-bike with a teeny tiny 180 Wh battery on a long ride at the lowest possible power setting and with significant muscle effort on my part. I got a range of 56 miles (90 km), or close to 3 Wh/mi. It was grueling, but it showed what is possible, and how companies can get away with claiming sky-high ranges that may be possible, even if unlikely.
So sure, my generalized rule of thumb above uses fuzzy numbers. But they aren’t anywhere near as fuzzy as the ratings from most e-bike manufacturers.
In conclusion, I don’t intend to claim that there is malice on the part of most companies that market e-bikes. Their goal isn’t to mislead. They’re just caught in an unfortunate system where people want a short and pretty answer to what is under the surface actually a long and ugly question, “How far does it go on a charge?”
So until people are prepared to receive a table of data in response to that question, companies are basically forced to choose between giving an unimpressive albeit more honest range spectrum like, “It can go 20-45 miles per charge,” or to just give the rosier answer of “It can go 45 miles.” With millions of dollars on the line, you can guess which one they prefer to choose.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Plant workers drive along an aluminum potline at Century Aluminum Company’s Hawesville plant in Hawesville, Ky. on Wednesday, May 10, 2017. (Photo by Luke Sharrett /For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Aluminum
The Washington Post | The Washington Post | Getty Images
Sweeping tariffs on imported aluminum imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump are succeeding in reshaping global trade flows and inflating costs for American consumers, but are falling short of their primary goal: to revive domestic aluminum production.
Instead, rising costs, particularly skyrocketing electricity prices in the U.S. relative to global competitors, are leading to smelter closures rather than restarts.
The impact of aluminum tariffs at 25% is starkly visible in the physical aluminum market. While benchmark aluminum prices on the London Metal Exchange provide a global reference, the actual cost of acquiring the metal involves regional delivery premiums.
This premium now largely reflects the tariff cost itself.
In stark contrast, European premiums were noted by JPMorgan analysts as being over 30% lower year-to-date, creating a significant divergence driven directly by U.S. trade policy.
This cost will ultimately be borne by downstream users, according to Trond Olaf Christophersen, the chief financial officer of Norway-based Hydro, one of the world’s largest aluminum producers. The company was formerly known as Norsk Hydro.
“It’s very likely that this will end up as higher prices for U.S. consumers,” Christophersen told CNBC, noting the tariff cost is a “pass-through.” Shares of Hydro have collapsed by around 17% since tariffs were imposed.
Stock Chart IconStock chart icon
The downstream impact of the tariffs is already being felt by Thule Group, a Hydro customer that makes cargo boxes fitted atop cars. The company said it’ll raise prices by about 10% even though it manufactures the majority of the goods sold in the U.S locally, as prices of raw materials, such as steel and aluminum, have shot up.
But while tariffs are effectively leading to prices rise in the U.S., they haven’t spurred a revival in domestic smelting, the energy-intensive process of producing primary aluminum.
The primary barrier remains the lack of access to competitively priced, long-term power, according to the industry.
“Energy costs are a significant factor in the overall production cost of a smelter,” said Ami Shivkar, principal analyst of aluminum markets at analytics firm Wood Mackenzie. “High energy costs plague the US aluminium industry, forcing cutbacks and closures.”
“Canadian, Norwegian, and Middle Eastern aluminium smelters typically secure long-term energy contracts or operate captive power generation facilities. US smelter capacity, however, largely relies on short-term power contracts, placing it at a disadvantage,” Shivkar added, noting that energy costs for U.S. aluminum smelters were about $550 per tonne compared to $290 per tonne for Canadian smelters.
Recent events involving major U.S. producers underscore this power vulnerability.
In March 2023, Alcoa Corp announced the permanent closure of its 279,000 metric ton Intalco smelter, which had been idle since 2020. Alcoa said that the facility “cannot be competitive for the long-term,” partly because it “lacks access to competitively priced power.”
Century stated the power cost required to run the facility had “more than tripled the historical average in a very short period,” necessitating a curtailment expected to last nine to twelve months until prices normalized.
The industry has also not had a respite as demand for electricity from non-industrial sources has risen in recent years.
Hydro’s Christophersen pointed to the artificial intelligence boom and the proliferation of data centers as new competitors for power. He suggested that new energy production capacity in the U.S., from nuclear, wind or solar, is being rapidly consumed by the tech sector.
“The tech sector, they have a much higher ability to pay than the aluminium industry,” he said, noting the high double-digit margins of the tech sector compared to the often low single-digit margins at aluminum producers. Hydro reported an 8.3% profit margin in the first quarter of 2025, an increase from the 3.5% it reported for the previous quarter, according to Factset data.
“Our view, and for us to build a smelter [in the U.S.], we would need cheap power. We don’t see the possibility in the current market to get that,” the CFO added. “The lack of competitive power is the reason why we don’t think that would be interesting for us.”
While failing to ignite domestic primary production, the tariffs are undeniably causing what Christophersen termed a “reshuffling of trade flows.”
When U.S. market access becomes more costly or restricted, metal flows to other destinations.
Christophersen described a brief period when exceptionally high U.S. tariffs on Canadian aluminum — 25% additional tariffs on top of the aluminum-specific tariffs — made exporting to Europe temporarily more attractive for Canadian producers. Consequently, more European metals would have made their way into the U.S. market to make up for the demand gap vacated by Canadian aluminum.
The price impact has even extended to domestic scrap metal prices, which have adjusted upwards in line with the tariff-inflated Midwest premium.
Hydro, also the world’s largest aluminum extruder, utilizes both domestic scrap and imported Canadian primary metal in its U.S. operations. The company makes products such as window frames and facades in the country through extrusion, which is the process of pushing aluminum through a die to create a specific shape.
“We are buying U.S. scrap [aluminium]. A local raw material. But still, the scrap prices now include, indirectly, the tariff cost,” Christophersen explained. “We pay the tariff cost in reality, because the scrap price adjusts to the Midwest premium.”
“We are paying the tariff cost, but we quickly pass it on, so it’s exactly the same [for us],” he added.
RBC Capital Markets analysts confirmed this pass-through mechanism for Hydro’s extrusions business, saying “typically higher LME prices and premiums will be passed onto the customer.”
This pass-through has occurred amid broader market headwinds, particularly downstream among Hydro’s customers.
RBC highlighted the “weak spot remains the extrusion divisions” in Hydro’s recent results and noted a guidance downgrade, reflecting sluggish demand in sectors like building and construction.
Danish energy giant Ørsted has canceled plans for the Hornsea 4 offshore wind farm, dealing a major blow to the UK’s renewable energy ambitions.
Hornsea 4, at a massive 2.4 gigawatts (GW), would have become one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, generating enough clean electricity to power over 1 million UK homes. But Ørsted announced that it’s abandoning the project “in its current form.”
“The adverse macroeconomic developments, continued supply chain challenges, and increased execution, market, and operational risks have eroded the value creation,” said Rasmus Errboe, group president and CEO of Ørsted.
Reuters reported that Ørsted’s cancellation of Hornsea 4 would result in a projected loss of up to 5.5 billion Danish crowns ($837.85 million) in breakaway fees and asset write-downs. The company’s market value has declined by 80% since its peak in 2021.
The cancellation highlights significant challenges currently facing offshore wind development in Europe, particularly in the UK. The combination of higher material costs, inflation, and global financial instability has made large-scale renewable projects increasingly difficult to finance and complete.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Ørsted’s decision is a significant setback to the UK’s energy transition goals. The UK currently has around 15 GW of offshore wind, and Hornsea 4’s size would have provided almost 7% of the additional capacity needed for the UK’s 50 GW by 2030 target, according to The Times. Losing this immense project off the Yorkshire coast could hamper the UK’s pace of reducing dependency on fossil fuels, especially amid volatile global energy markets.
The UK government reiterated its commitment to renewable energy, promising to work closely with industry leaders to overcome financial and logistical hurdles. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told reporters in Norway that the UK is “still committed to working with Orsted to seek to make Hornsea 4 happen by 2030.”
Ørsted says it remains committed to its other UK-based projects, including the Hornsea 3 wind farm, which is expected to generate around 2.9 GW once completed at the end of 2027. Despite the challenges, the company emphasized its ongoing commitment to the British renewable market, pointing to the critical need for policy support and economic stability to ensure future developments.
Yet, the cancellation of Hornsea 4 demonstrates that even flagship renewable projects are vulnerable in the face of economic pressures and global uncertainties, which have been heightened under the Trump administration in the US.
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The Tesla Roadster appears to be quietly disappearing after years of delay. is it ever going to be made?
I may have jinxed it with Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, which suggests any headline ending in a question mark can be answered with “no.”
The prototype for the next-generation Tesla Roadster was first unveiled in 2017, and it was supposed to come into production in 2020, but it has been delayed every year since then.
It was supposed to get 620 miles (1,000 km) of range and accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 1.9 seconds.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
It has become a sort of running joke, and there are doubts that it will ever come to market despite Tesla’s promise of dozens of free new Roadsters to Tesla owners who participated in its referral program years ago.
Tesla uses the promise of free Roadsters to help generate billions of dollars worth of sales, which Tesla owners delivered, but the automaker never delivered on its part of the agreement.
Furthermore, many people placed deposits ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 to reserve the vehicle, which was supposed to hit the market 5 years ago.
“With respect to Roadster, we’ve completed most of the engineering. And I think there’s still some upgrades we want to make to it, but we expect to be in production with Roadster next year. It will be something special.”
He said that Tesla had completed “most of the engineering”, but he initially said the engineering would be done in 2021 and that was already 3 years after the prototype was unveiled and a year after it was supposed to be in production:
There was one small update about the Roadster in Tesla’s financial results last month.
The automaker has a table of all its vehicle production, and the Roadster was updated from “in development” to “design development” in the table:
It’s not clear if that’s progress or Tesla is just rephrasing it. Either way, it is not “construction”, which makes it unlikely that the Roadster is going into production this year.
If ever…
Electrek’s Take
It looks like Tesla owes about 80 Tesla Roadsters for free to Tesla owners who referred purchases, and it owes significant discounts on hundreds of units.
It’s hard for me to believe that Tesla is not delivering the new Roadster because the vehicle program would start about $100 million in the red, but at this point, I have no idea. It very well might be the reason.
However, I think it’s more likely that Tesla is just terrible at bringing multiple vehicle programs to market simultaneously. Case in point: it launched a single new vehicle in the last five years.
At this point, I think it’s more likely that the Roadster will never happen. It will join other Tesla products like the Cybertruck Range Extender.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.